Dante
"The Libido for the Ugly"
"The Supreme Court on Wednesday took up a challenge to a law used to charge hundreds of people in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, and which also has been levied against former president Donald Trump in his federal election obstruction case."
People here as usual -- all over the place using political arguments and misinterpreting what exactly is before the Supreme Court.
Listening to talk radio, watching 24/7 cable news, and reading blogs and other web articles that have no standards of fact checking to be held to, people just throw stuff against the wall, and have admitted to being in threads merely to score what they see as cheap points in a game of gotcha. But there are seriously important issues that could and probably should be addressed in places like usmb. I believe they won't be. But we can try.
These issues go to the heart of our (USA), system of government.
Part of the case:
Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge KATSAS .
P AN , Circuit Judge:
As Congress convened on January 6, 2021, to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election in favor of Joseph R. Biden, Jr., thousands of supporters of the losing candidate, Donald J. Trump, converged on the United States Capitol to disrupt the proceedings.
The Trump supporters swarmed the building, overwhelming law enforcement officers who attempted to stop them. The chaos wrought by the mob forced members of Congress to stop the certification and flee for safety. Congress was not able to resume its work for six hours.
The question raised in this case is whether individuals who allegedly assaulted law enforcement officers while participating in the Capitol riot can be charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1512(c)(2). The district court held that the statute does not apply to assaultive conduct, committed in furtherance of an
attempt to stop Congress from performing a constitutionally required duty. We disagree and reverse.
web.archive.org
Appellees Joseph Fischer, Edward Lang, and Garret Miller
were charged by indictment in separate cases with various
offenses arising from their alleged participation in the Capitol
riot on January 6, 2021. Although we draw from the criminal
complaints and pre-trial briefing to describe their alleged
conduct, we consider only the indictments to determine the
sufficiency of any charge.
Fischer allegedly belonged to the mob that forced
Congress to stop its certification process.1 On January 6, 2021,
he encouraged rioters to “charge” and “hold the line,” had a
“physical encounter” with at least one law enforcement officer,
and participated in pushing the police. Fischer Crim. Compl.,
Appellant’s Appendix (“App.”) 423–27. Before January 6, he
allegedly sent text messages to acquaintances, stating: “If
Trump don’t get in we better get to war”; “Take democratic
[C]ongress to the gallows. . . . Can’t vote if they can’t breathe
. . . lol”; and “I might need you to post my bail. . . . It might
get violent. . . . They should storm the capital [sic] and drag all
the democrates [sic] into the street and have a mob trial.” Gov’t
Opp’n to Mot. to Clarify and Modify Conditions of Release,
App. 433–34. Fischer’s seven-count indictment charges him
with assaulting both Capitol Police and MPD officers. Fischer
Indictment, App. 444.
1Appellees argue that Fischer could not have obstructed the
Electoral College vote certification because he arrived at the Capitol
after Congress recessed. Although the nature and significance of
Fischer’s conduct are factual issues to be addressed at trial, the
government’s allegations sufficiently support a theory that Fischer
impeded a Congressional proceeding that did not resume for six
hours.
People here as usual -- all over the place using political arguments and misinterpreting what exactly is before the Supreme Court.
Listening to talk radio, watching 24/7 cable news, and reading blogs and other web articles that have no standards of fact checking to be held to, people just throw stuff against the wall, and have admitted to being in threads merely to score what they see as cheap points in a game of gotcha. But there are seriously important issues that could and probably should be addressed in places like usmb. I believe they won't be. But we can try.
These issues go to the heart of our (USA), system of government.
Part of the case:
Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge KATSAS .
P AN , Circuit Judge:
As Congress convened on January 6, 2021, to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election in favor of Joseph R. Biden, Jr., thousands of supporters of the losing candidate, Donald J. Trump, converged on the United States Capitol to disrupt the proceedings.
The Trump supporters swarmed the building, overwhelming law enforcement officers who attempted to stop them. The chaos wrought by the mob forced members of Congress to stop the certification and flee for safety. Congress was not able to resume its work for six hours.
The question raised in this case is whether individuals who allegedly assaulted law enforcement officers while participating in the Capitol riot can be charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1512(c)(2). The district court held that the statute does not apply to assaultive conduct, committed in furtherance of an
attempt to stop Congress from performing a constitutionally required duty. We disagree and reverse.
Supreme Court accepts Jan. 6 case that could affect or delay Trump trial
The challenge involves a law used to charge hundreds in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot, and also levied against former president Donald Trump.
web.archive.org
Appellees Joseph Fischer, Edward Lang, and Garret Miller
were charged by indictment in separate cases with various
offenses arising from their alleged participation in the Capitol
riot on January 6, 2021. Although we draw from the criminal
complaints and pre-trial briefing to describe their alleged
conduct, we consider only the indictments to determine the
sufficiency of any charge.
Fischer allegedly belonged to the mob that forced
Congress to stop its certification process.1 On January 6, 2021,
he encouraged rioters to “charge” and “hold the line,” had a
“physical encounter” with at least one law enforcement officer,
and participated in pushing the police. Fischer Crim. Compl.,
Appellant’s Appendix (“App.”) 423–27. Before January 6, he
allegedly sent text messages to acquaintances, stating: “If
Trump don’t get in we better get to war”; “Take democratic
[C]ongress to the gallows. . . . Can’t vote if they can’t breathe
. . . lol”; and “I might need you to post my bail. . . . It might
get violent. . . . They should storm the capital [sic] and drag all
the democrates [sic] into the street and have a mob trial.” Gov’t
Opp’n to Mot. to Clarify and Modify Conditions of Release,
App. 433–34. Fischer’s seven-count indictment charges him
with assaulting both Capitol Police and MPD officers. Fischer
Indictment, App. 444.
1Appellees argue that Fischer could not have obstructed the
Electoral College vote certification because he arrived at the Capitol
after Congress recessed. Although the nature and significance of
Fischer’s conduct are factual issues to be addressed at trial, the
government’s allegations sufficiently support a theory that Fischer
impeded a Congressional proceeding that did not resume for six
hours.
